Opinion Forest rights, wrongs
SC does well to stay its order evicting forest-dwellers. States must ensure due process is followed in implementing FRA.
The court’s decision to review its verdict of February 13, which would have displaced more than a million people from their homes in the forests, is welcome.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court put on hold its recent order asking states to evict forest-dwellers whose claims on land had been rejected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The court’s decision to review its verdict of February 13, which would have displaced more than a million people from their homes in the forests, is welcome.
The stay order comes in response to a review petition filed by the Centre and the Gujarat government. Showing a welcome inclination to address the concerns of activists, wildlife scientists and representatives of political parties, the SC acknowledged the need to ask whether due processes were followed by gram sabhas and state authorities before the claims for forest rights were rejected. It will now take up the matter on July 10.
In several instances in the past three years — including the triple talaq and privacy cases — the apex court has interpreted the law creatively to meet the objectives of social justice and uphold constitutional rights. The FRA, too, calls out for similar jurisprudence. The Act recognises that tribal and other traditional forest-dwelling communities would be hard put to provide documentary evidence for their claims.
Rule 13 of the Act, therefore, stipulates that the gram sabhas should “consider more than one evidence in determining forest rights”. The rule sanctions a wide range of evidence, including “statements by village elders”, “community rights” and “physical attributes such as houses, huts and permanent improvements made to land such as levelling, bunds and check dams”.
A Gujarat High Court verdict of 2013 confirmed the FRA’s inclusive principle. “The primary duty of the Court, while interpreting the provisions of the Act, is to adopt a constructive approach… One should not overlook or ignore the hard fact that the claim petitions are filed by persons who. would hardly possess any convincing and cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the authorities,” the court pointed out.
A 2014 report of a high-level committee on socio-economic, health and educational status of tribal communities in India — the Virginius Xaxa Committee, constituted by the UPA government — noted that gram sabhas were “rejecting claims of forest-dwellers without assigning reasons”. “The rejections are not being communicated to the claimants, and their right to appeal is not being explained to them nor its exercise facilitated,” the report pointed out.
Such criticisms of the FRA’s implementation do not seem to have informed the SC’s February 13 verdict. Its latest ruling, however, is a welcome corrective. State governments must now take the cue and ensure that due processes are followed in deciding — or rejecting — FRA claims.
Share
